Friday, March 20, 2009

The Company We Keep

George Galloway, the British MP who has just now been reportedly denied entry to Canada, is a petty and notoriously corrupt streetcorner demagogue who moonlights as a scab for the journalist-jailing authoritarian regime in Tehran. He is perhaps the English-speaking world's most strident defender of the boodthirsty, far-right religious movement Hezbollah, Tehran's proxy army in Lebanon. He is a successful fundraiser for the religious-fundamentalist death cult Hamas, which is banned in Canada and for which it is specifically illegal to raise funds in Canada.

Galloway is a thug, a collaborator with totalitian Baathism, and one of the most sinister champions of a global Islamist reaction that has resulted in the jailing, torture and execution of tens of thousands of Muslim democrats, women's rights leaders, socialists and liberals. A proper left-wing debate about what to do about someone like George Galloway might focus on whether he should be summarily executed as a counter-revolutionary, allowed to serve out the remainder of his miserable life in prison, or allowed to remain at large so that the people could laugh at him, insult him, or ignore him to their heart's content.

Worse - to give you an idea just how degenerate certain sections of the "Left" in this country have become - Galloway is routinely celebrated as an "anti-war" hero. And not just by lunatic-fringe elements who show up at demonstrations with embarrassing placards, either.

Galloway says he is going to sue Canada for denying him entry. I hope he wins. Not because of some dizzy libertarian argument about his "right" to visit Canada - he has absolutely no such right - but because the Immigration Act section under which he is being barred entry needs to be scrapped, and a wholly-rewritten section put in its place.

The "subversion by force of any government" is the problem. The effect of the law is to close Canada's doors to any freedom fighter engaged in armed struggle, or even advocating armed struggle, to overthrow precisely the tyrannies Galloway can't stop himself from sucking up to.

We should be allowed by our own laws to determine the company we keep. Much of the Left in Canada may well be too far gone to be able to recognize a dirty little blackshirt like Galloway for what he is. But that doesn't mean that the rest of us should not be entitled to live in a country with laws sufficient to welcome our friends in the struggle for democracy and against tyranny, and to deny safe harbour, of any kind, to any of their sworn enemies.

Ahmed, how does refusal of a visa to a white non-muslim Brit makes a person islamophobe, Israeli extremist or a neo-con? If anything, Terry Glavin has criticised the Canadian law that was used to deny entry to Galloway. Here is again the relevant parts for your benefit:

"Galloway says he is going to sue Canada for denying him entry. I hope he wins. Not because of some dizzy libertarian argument about his "right" to visit Canada - he has absolutely no such right - but because the Immigration Act section under which he is being barred entry needs to be scrapped, and a wholly-rewritten section put in its place....The "subversion by force of any government" is the problem. The effect of the law is to close Canada's doors to any freedom fighter engaged in armed struggle, or even advocating armed struggle, to overthrow precisely the tyrannies Galloway can't stop himself from sucking up to."

First, you're out of your depth on these issues. Second, you don't help your case by telling me I'm on slippery ground, then dashing off the usual Bush-is-the-real-war-criminal stuff, and then giving voice to the delusion - the conspiracy theory - that I (or anyone else) want Galloway barred from this country because of his "views."

That is to be on such slippery ground that you fall flat on your face. But be my guest.

Go ahead and pretend that Galloway is being barred from Canada merely because of his "views" about Afghanistan (although you can spare me the conceit that you disagree with his views in any significant respect). Go ahead and subscribe to the ludicrious conspiracy theory Olivia Chow is constructing, which demands that one must accept the hypothesis that Ottawa is so "afraid of hearing contradictory points of view" about Afghanistan that it would not only bar Galloway but also those filthy scabs from CodePink - now rejuvenated from their pleasant visits with the theocrats in Tehran.

Go ahead and tell yourself that it is Jason Kenney who is at the centre of some sort of scandal here, and ignore as much as you like the real scandal, which is the grotesque moral and intellectual squalor of the individuals and "anti-war" groups that invited Galloway here in the first place, now compounded by the depravity of the NDP calling upon Canadians to rally to Galloway's side.

It is the "sins" of those individuals and organizations that I expose here, and that is what really bothers you, Bill. The "slippery ground" here is the intellectual slovenliness that continues to invent excuses and apologies for this stomach-turning behavior. It is ground so slippery that the federal NDP and its friends have now become the primary platform and megaphone in this country for the most outrageous fascist thug and apologist for Islamist despotism in the English speaking world.

It is ground so slippery that when this is pointed out, all that's left for you to do is to insinuate some ridiculous conspiracy theory and try to change the subject to the sins of George Bush.

And this is precisely how Canada's once proud and brave democratic-socialist party has degenerated into "Jack Layton's New Democrats."

Well, sorry, not fucking good enough. No. Won't be having it. Won't do it. And if you're wondering why I am in such a lather that I would bother to dignify your comment with such a full response, here's why.

The very week that George Galloway was taking his customary Press TV tributes from Tehran's English-language holocaust-denial broadcasting agency, and Olivia Chow was taking a holiday in San Diego on a spurious "fact-finding" mission to ensure that the fraudulent Yankee "war resister" Robin Long was sufficiently comfy in the Miramar brig, a brave young comrade in Evin Prison, dispatched there for the "crime" of insulting CodePink's luncheon partners and Galloway's benefactors, was dying. Two days ago it was reported that he had taken his own life, or died under "mysterious circumstances." In any case, Omidreza Mirsayafi died in that dungeon, as have so many trade unionists, student leaders, feminists, democrats and journalists, and I would trade every single NDP MP, and every last one of their sanctimonious apologists just to have Omidreza back.

As for Saskboy: If the only crime you can attribute to George Bush is that he merely overthrew the "sovereign government" of Saddam Hussein, then he should have been welcomed in Calgary, with flowers cast at his feet.

without free elections a country is not legally soveriegn, though most countries will defacto accept it. Hussein imposed himself on Iraq against the people and then killed the people who did not submit.

The post World War 2 war crimes trials ended the fiction that any depot has a right to rule.

All people in the world need to be speaking for democracy and against dictators. Goerge Galloway does the opposite, supports Hamas, Hezbollah, Baath etc.

Galloway is a legend in his own mind, who couldn't fill a phone booth with the cranks who support him. Saw that firsthand two years ago during the Dudden Hill by-election, when a well-advertised Respect rally at Gladstone school featuring him and a pair of dork Labour councillors from the other side of the city drew a grand total of 2 dozen voters, several of whom stood up and took Galloway and his lunatic friends to task for being "liars" and "scoundrels." Galloway clearly didn't like the criticism, but cringed in silence and let the local Respect executive rush to his defence.

The election result was Lib-Dem's MP Pawan Gupta, followed closely by Labour, and Tories trailed a distant third. The Respect candidate, a disgruntled postal clerk, received about one-third as many votes as the Tories did, which is pretty pathetic because Tory supporters are practically non-existent in Dudden Hill and the rest of historically left-leaning Brent borough.

I say let Galloway into Canada. I'll go see him again, but this time I'll bring a bag of rotten tomatoes for him.

Sorry, Saskboy, but really, your comment was ridiculous, I'm just not interested in your "views," but I will take this opportunity to reiterate that this little blog is not intended as a graffiti wall where people with pseudonyms can pop in and spray their idiocies about George Bush or whatever else happens to be turning their crank.

That is not how to contribute to a "discussion," and besides, this is not a discussion to which you have been invited, and it's not a discussion forum anyway. It's just a little blog.

Terry, I disagree with your objection to "engaging in or instigating subversion by force of any government" being grounds for the Canadian government barring entry to someone. The Sun story linked to by sHx makes clear that the government has discretion, and barring entry is not mandatory in these circumstances. The government must have a monopoly on war policy, and must be enabled to prevent individuals from waging war on other states from its territory.

I see your point. But there are two or three points getting jumbled up here, and the Sun story SHX linked to only adds to the confusion by mixing up two of these points.

Quite apart from the minister's healthy contempt for Galloway's views about the righteousness of killing Canadian soldiers, the immigration authorities who denied Galloway entry were quite specific that they were doing so under the provisions of the Immigration Act section I cited, which makes no reference to the repugnance of a person's views.

The minister can nonetheless exempt a person barred under that section - it's the minister's privilege - and in this case the minister did not. This is about ministerial privilege and discretion, which do not involve strictly legalistic or "right and wrong" decisions. The immigration authorities made a decision based on the relevant section of the Act, not Galloway's views. The minister is entitled to intervene or not, and he chose not to intervene - and why should he, given Galloway's "views"?

I confess that I am personally inclined to be happy about the way things turned out. But my point was a third point, and it was first brought to my attention by Alan Borovoy, head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Borovoy's objection is my objection. The section is written too broadly, such that active ministerial intervention is required in every case in order to prevent a comrade engaged in the struggle to overthrow a dictatorship from being barred entry into Canada owing to the simple application of the law.

This is bad law, in several aspects.

The most important is that the law itself quite plainly bars any and all true freedom fighters (unless of course a special exemption is sought and obtained). It's bad law because it fails to distinguish between persons engaged in the violent subversion of a proper democratic government and people who may be merely associated with a struggle engaged in necessary violence for the aim of overthrowing a despotic and anti-democratic regime.

In my view, the section's deepest flaw is its effect: It makes the entry of every legitimate freedom fighter into Canada a potentially explosive "diplomatic incident," because rather than the entry being a matter of course in the simple operation of Canadian law, every such entry is made a "political" decision, a decision involving the discretion and privilege of a sitting cabinet minister.

Ministerial discretion is all well and good. But we are governed by laws, not ministers. And we need a better law.

"Velshi said Galloway was deemed inadmissible to Canada due to national security concerns.

It was an "operational decision" by border security officials "based on a number of factors, not only those mentioned in the Sun piece," he said.

Such a decision could be overturned by ministerial order, but it is not warranted in this case, he said.

"We're going to uphold the law, not give special treatment to a street-corner Cromwell who brags about giving 'financial support' to Hamas, a terrorist organization banned in Canada," Velshi said."

"National security concerns" - from an elected member of the British parliament.

Galloway is an offensive fool - banning him gives him far more attention than he deserves.

And I have not defended anyone's position, including the NDP's, but my own.

But I think your friend Michael Ignatieff is right on this one. Ignatieff said:

"If he's being barred on free speech grounds, that's an outrage," Ignatieff said. "I mean he can come to Canada and talk rubbish all day long as far as I'm concerned. (But) if there is a security threat, that's another matter."

But fulminate all you want and give Galloway even more credibility with the slimy creatures that live under rocks.

I'll still say that Canada is democratic enough and smart enough to tolerate free speech, even from offensive morons.

Lastly, as for Galloway supporting Saddam Hussein, that was once the role of previous American administrations. It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

"Lastly, as for Galloway supporting Saddam Hussein, that was once the role of previous American administrations. It was wrong then, it's wrong now."

Sorry, can someone help me untangle this bit of rhetoric?

What was wrong then and is wrong now? a) supporting Saddam b) George Galloway c) American administrations

The US government reversed its policy on Saddam in the middle of 1990. Was the US wrong before 1990 or after? If putting Saddam in power and keeping him there was bad US policy -I assume everybody agrees that was bad policy-, then why is it bad policy to remove him from that power?

And why is it that so few 'anti-war' people salute the strength, courage and indefatigueability of anti-Saddam forces in Iraq, those who persisted in opposing his genocidal regime for decades regardless of whether the US supported or opposed him?

My apologies again about the name. I want my name to apeear as sHx and the address to be the blog (alakurda) that I'll soon be setting up with several friends but can't figure out how to fuse them. It worked once or twice but not anymore.

Anyway... my other comment is back on the topic of the Odious George.

Yes there's some confusion as to why the Odious was refused entry. It seems when the Canadian immigration authorities refused to issue a visa, they were applying a specific law, which Terry has expressly said should be re-worked on.

However, from what we can see in the media the immigration minister has his own, separate reasons for not overturning his department's decision, eg, supporting people who kill Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

To put it briefly but crudely, the department's decision is legalistic whereas the minister's is political.

From what I know of the Westminister system of government, it would be entirely within the government minister's right to refuse entry even if his department allowed it. And that too would be a political decision.

In Australia, there is a living breathing and thoroughly embarrassing example of an immigration minister overturning his department's original decision that refused a person with extremist views permanent residency. Gary Hand, the then minister of Immigration, granted Taj El-Din Hilaly permanent residency, while he refused to issue the same visa to me and to so many other Kurds that I know of. It took me 7 years but I did eventually get my visa. Nearly twenty years on, the entire country regrets having issued him even a travel permit at the first place and would rather have him out of the country permanenetly if they could.

I'm not sure if links from wiki are allowed on this blog but here you can read more about him:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_El-Din_Hilaly#cite_note-8

"I regret not bringing tomatoes to Dudden Hill 2 years ago. I need to make amends. I'll even bake him a pie and decorate him with it. Please allow George Galloway into Canada."

If he's ever allowed into Australia, I am going to throw at him my heavy boots. Mark my words. It won't be a civilised protest precisely and may even prove most embarrassing for me personally, but it will be worth it. That fascist pig has a right to kiss my boots.

Your problem is quite evidently that you can't see the facts when they are staring you in the face. Even when you attempt to marshall those same facts in your defence and they so unambiguously contradict you and the NDP position (and don't be clever, what you're trying here is exactly and precisely the ruse Olivia Chow is attempting).

You showed up here telling me I was on a slippery slope, and insinuating that this is some sort of free speech issue, and that after all Galloway is not as bad as George Bush or something. This is an attempt to change the subject, and you refuse to address the subject at hand, and this is clearly because of the fact that you not only share Galloway's "views" about Afghanistan in every important respect, and you have chosen to argue in favour of Olivia Chow's conspiracy theory. You did, after all, reiterate that conspiracy theory in your latest comment by declaring that "Canada is democratic enough and smart enough to tolerate free speech," as if this were an effort to curtail free speech.

It's not. You know it. The facts your cite prove it. All the minister did was refuse Galloway an extraordinary exemption from a lawful decision to bar him on a section of the Immigration Act that has nothing to with the mere expression of views, no matter how repugnant. The minister need not take into account that Galloway is "an elected member of the British parliament," and neither would I, because appeals to class snobbery don't work with me and I don't care if he is the fucking Queen of England.

You can comfort yourself by saying, well, at least George Galloway is not as bad as George Bush, as if that somehow recommends him as an intellectual wellspring to inform a "left-wing" politics in my country. No. Not good enough.

You can also comfort yourself in the delusion that Galloway is merely an "offensive fool," but it is a delusion, and you know it. As a decent an honest New Democrat pointed out elsewhere only today, it wasn't that long ago that the NDP was quite happily applauding when Ernst Zundel was being turfed from Canada, and it wasn't just his repugnant views that were the matters at hand then, either. Now we have the NDP not only refraining from applause in George Galloway's case, but casting him as the victim of a long-standing federal plot to prevent Canadians from hearing "international experts" and their "anti-war messages," owing to a fear that Canadians will hear "opposing points of view."

And Galloway is not just as loathsome and sinister as Ernst Zundel. He's worse. He has done more for the cause of fascist tyranny and the torture and jailing and slaughter of democrats, progressives and liberals - and Canadian soldiers, incidentally - than Zundel ever managed to do, by several orders of magnitude.

And the NDP is not taking a mere "let him speak, free speech for all" position with respect to Galloway, and you know that, too. If you don't, you haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention. The federal NDP is Galloway's fan base in this country. The NDP and the vile individuals and organizations to which the party has subcontracted the work of developing a legitimately left-wing and progressive position on Afghanistan have invited Galloway to this country more than once, have taken him to their bosom, have taken their speaking points from him, and have given him courage, comfort, sucour and standing ovations at every opportunity.

And then you say I'm the one who has been giving Galloway "credibility." You've managed to tie yourself in such knots that you've got everything upside down and backwards. That is what I meant when I said, charitably and generously, that you are out of your depth on these issues.

You got one thing partly right in your reference to Galloway being among "the slimy creatures that live under rocks." But what you are incapable of facing is that it isn't rocks that have been giving those slimy creatures their protection. It is instead a cast of characters, bullshit artists and politicians, among whom most prominently in this case are Olivia Chow, the Canadian Peace Alliance, the Stop The War Coalition, and their apologists and excuse-makers.

First: Long Live Kurdistan. I am happy and proud that an Aussie Kurd of your standing is stopping by here. Good man.

Second: "From what I know of the Westminster system of government, it would be entirely within the government minister's right to refuse entry even if his department allowed it. And that too would be a political decision."

I believe that is indeed so in Canada's case, but within constraints; I expect the process would be at least a bit more arduous in the case of a minister intervening to actually overturn an otherwise competent administrative decision such as this. In Galloway's case, however, all the minister did was decline to intervene. He declined to grant Galloway an extraordinary exemption to what was an administrative decision to bar him that was based on a close and competent reading of Section 34(1) of the Immigration Act.

The minister's statements to the effect that Galloway is a scumbag may indeed have led to some confusion, but to be fair, a brief Toronto tabloid report of the minister's statements in this context might have been the thing that caused the confusion.

By the way, Bernard, I've been meaning to say: I would not let in "the devil himself" and I suspect that's not quite what you meant, but you make a very good suggestion in letting Galloway him in and then arresting him once he starts exhorting the crowds to send money to Hamas from his "Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar" pulpit at the Metropolitan United Church in Toronto.

That would have been sweeter. It would also have been a kind of entrapment, and it would cost loads of money and trouble, but I have to admit it would have given us all great fun for some long while, watching the rats getting smoked from their compost heaps, and even the prospect of Galloway doing time in a crowbar hotel right here in Canada would be quite satisfying altogether. Twenty years in a Nunavut labour camp is what I'd give him.

We've actually met once before at Louis Proyect's web page following Hitchens's VF article on Mark Daily. Indeed, it was I who was touched, honoured and proud with your challenges at the time to Mr Proyect, a typical figure from the mob; the 'anti-war' mob, that is.

There are still people from the left/liberal tradition who would not abandon their comrades-for-decades on the account of 'anti-imperialism'. There is a sense of solidarity still. Some decency left yet in this world. I consider you to be among them, Terry, I strongly believe history shall vindicate our position.

A small group of us English-speaking Kurds looked at the dearth of information -facts and opinion alike- on the Kurdistan corner of the web and decided to do something about it. Also, we'd like to make some contribution to the ongoing war of words within the left/liberal tradition and stand by the comrades who stood by us.

We'll begin once we've figured out how to set up and run something as simple as a blog. Honestly, our small team are completely befuddled with this blog thingy. If only it were as simple to use as AK-47. Anyway, we'll soon figure it out and join the fray with our keyboards. Indeed, I should be working on alakurda right now, instead of debating here.

But I'm honoured to be here, and honoured and proud to be your and Kurt's and Hitch's and Mark Daily's friend.

"As for Saskboy: If the only crime you can attribute to George Bush is that he merely overthrew the "sovereign government" of Saddam Hussein, then he should have been welcomed in Calgary, with flowers cast at his feet.

Numpty."

Indeed, Terry. Indeed. I would crawl over broken glass for the opportunity to cast flowers at his feet. Whatever else one may say about the man, he liberated a long-suffering nation from the grip of one of the worst tyrants of the 20th century, and he stuck to it long enough to see Iraq stand on its own feet, however green and wobbly it might be. Some people haven't a clue what it is like to live under tyranny.

Louise: I'm afraid I have to confess that if I were to subject myself to such discomfort as to crawl across broken glass to get at him I'd want to give him a damn good thrashing for my efforts, to say nothing of the efforts and unnecessary suffering he and his administration caused the Iraqi people, and his slovenly "we don't do nation-building" policy in Afghanistan, the consequences of which we are still living with today, and to whcih I fear Obama will be only to happy to revert.

But still, and all that said, you are quite right on the central point. And I have to give the devil his due. Iraq is emerging as a democracy, the Kurds are still free, trhe world is unburdened of the Iraqi Baathist menace, and I could go on.

"Last week, on a freezing night in a blacked-out bunker outside Halabja, a city in the mountains of northeastern Iraq, the officers of a Kurdish guerrilla unit drank tea and laid out in vivid detail what they would do to President Bush if he fell into their hands. “I would kiss him one thousand times,” the company commander, Sheikh Fattah, said. “I would carry him on my shoulders and shout songs to him,” another officer, Farouk Khaled, added. “I would sacrifice one thousand sheep and two thousand chickens for him,” a third officer, Mam Siamand, said."

I must say all these slurs and insults are very amusing considering they come from people who have probably not accomplished so much in their dreary little lives.

George cannot be all that bad. I mean. seriously, he is elected again and again because he actually goes with a humanitarian conscience. He is not cowed by the Zionist thugs who are taking over our western world by hook and mostly by crook.

George can out orate almost every single politician around because most of these morally bankrupt characters have forgotten how to think for themselves; they serve the naive public by kissing the bottoms of those who pay them for their compliance.

The thought of a debate between Herr Busch and GG is almost too amusing to contemplate. Yet this mass murderer, war criminal and true thug was welcomed into Canada. I would say there are a few crooked things here. Stinks just a little bit.

The creature Meir Whinestein of the JDL is a true terrorist yet THIS creature is integral in advising the purse-lipped Kenney about the horrors of an honorable speaker?

What you people do not seem to get is that this whole affair is making our wonderful Canada even more of a laughing stock on the international scene than you can imagine. They discuss this idiocy in Cairo, Kuala Lampur, Kuwait, and laugh at how petty it is. Or they say, "We thought Canada was a free society".

Personally I see it as more unwanted Zionist control of MY country, a country my family helped build 11 generations ago. We are sliding into the American pit of censorship and that, folks, is just pathetic.

Now, return to your regularly scheduled bitching about a man none of you can hold a candle to. As for commenting on my words, feel free. I won't return to this miserable man's blog again to check it. I tend to prefer positive attitudes and there ain't nuthin' positive here.

George Bush was the governor of the second most populous state in the USA after an election. He won the second gubernatorial election in Texas with nearly 70 percent of the vote.

Then he won two even tougher elections in a row and was the president of the most powerful nation-state in the world and the leading nation in the West for eight years, the limits of his country's constitution.

It took many debates with powerful opponents, all broadcast live to a hundred million American voters, for George Bush to achieve success. Yet, he was modest and self-deprecating enough (a trait never seen in dictators) to say to young students, "those of you who received honors, awards and distinctions, I say, well done. And to the C students, I say, you too can be president of the United States."

The Odious George Galloway was first elected to the UK parliament in 1987 with less than 18 thousand votes cast for him. That makes it 42.9 percent of the voters in the seat. In 1992 elections, he retained his seat with just over 15 thousand votes, down to 38.5 percent. Riding on the back of Tony Blair and the new Labour's popularity, he won 1997 and 2001 elections with 16,641 votes (51 percent) and 12.014 votes (44.8 percent), respectively.

On the account of being disloyal and disrespectful to the party that gave him a name and parliamentary career, he was kicked out of Labour in 2003. So he set up RESPECT, an unholy alliance of like minded, pro-fascist, communists and islamo-fascist sympathisers. With the aid of some gullible 'anti-war' voters and conservative defectors, he managed to beat the incumbent MP Oona King, a young woman of mixed race, in 2003, by a margin of 823 votes. Tony Blair and the Labour retained the government yet again.

During his entire career as a Labour MP, the Odious George was never elected to, or entrusted with, any executive office either in government, in parliamentary caucus or in the party ranks. As much as he was ambitious, he was a complete failure as an MP.

Even as the only RESPECT MP in the UK parliament, he's failed and embarrassed his party and constituents with his indignifying acts (not self-deprecating, mind you) on celebrity Big Brother. Never a working class hero, there is no low this guy will not sink for fame and fortune. The only person that could definitively attest to Galloway's moral bankruptcy was hanged for crimes against humanity after getting his arse licked by Galloway's sharp tongue.

This elderly lady, Barbara, is clearly impressed by that cigar-chomping, suave charlatan. In love, almost, since she considers the oily, odious George Galloway as an accomplished higher man. Not as high a man as Saddam, perhaps, but more accomplished than George Bush.

This elderly lady, Barbara, need not see facts and figures. In her pinky La-la-land, she is ripe for defrauding by any snake-oil salesman with elementary oratory skills.

Also, who among us believes babs won't be back to read responses to her missive? Do me a favor; i've posted on enough blogs to know that individuals don't write a few hundred words without going back to see comments about them.

Decided to visits Babs' site, since she so kindly provided a link. As I suspected, total racist nutter: consider this gem, right off them top, where she urges readers to "go to my channel page, grab the URL to my blog and you will learn a fair bit presented in a sane cool manner regarding AIPAC and Zionism and the Talmud."The talmud, eh? And i bet she's happy to call anyone who challenges the hadith islamophobic.

Then there's this, which qualifies in the "nutter" category: "Now on a frivolous note. These hateful comments [from Zionists, in case you didn't figure that out]all come from men who are ugly as sin. Of course. the body IS the reflection of the soul within at times! So how come, so many Palestinians, just plain folk, the males, are so uncommonly beautiful?"

I just looked at her youtube channel too and saw this like minded idiot looking for a root: "Barbara you look great for your age (60!) and I would like to add you to my friends. I read some of your comments on other videos and I must say you are﻿ bright and hard to fool."

Too bad you've been fooled, buddy! It's not her. She looks faintly familiar, but most probably it's the photo of some western model or actress posing in some Afghan apparel. They'd have thrown acid into her face by now if it were the real deal.

The elderly lady's already been fooled by the Odious, and now the fool is leading the fool in a foolish circle. Allah be praised! Pity she didn't het a taste of Yasser Arafat's 'beautiful' Palestinian body.

It's quite odd that she didn't have anything to say, not even a word, about... whassername?... that other nutter. Let me cut and paste her name: "Beverly Giesbrecht, aka Khadija Abdul Qahaarand, aka Paul Morris-Read, Unspun".

Who knows, maybe the muslim Barbie is too busy saving real muslims. I mean, more real and better looking muslims, most preferably rich males... the accomplished, oil rich, sheikh types... The ones that she read about in Mills & Boons novels. Maybe time is too short (she's 60, after all!) for her to be bothered about that other nutter, her fellow fool, that British Columbian fake muslim, who also happens to be after a few good, beautiful, muslim men. Beverly/Khadija is a competitior, and not a team mate, you see? Maybe she's not a fool after all.

Sorry for going on and on about this, but I'm really angry with these hopeless, romantic pensioners.

And just what is this thing about Vancouver producing a disproportionate number of 40+ year-old women converts to militant islam?

In late 1990s, I be-friended a very intelligent, humourous and free spirited Vancouver woman on soc.culture.kurdish. She was waging all alone a powerful pro-Kurdish battle against half-a-dozen angry Turkish men. She and I established a very good rapport online and we exchanged a dozen or so private e-mails. Her name, I shall not mention, but I can to tell you that she had a Persian academic for a boyfirend, and they were both atheists.

A few years later, at the heigth of the 2nd Chechen War, I see her name again, this time on a Chechen web page. It turned out that she'd broken up with her boyfriend, embraced the Chechen cause and -now brace yourself-, converted to islam. She'd even changed her name to a muslim name.

So I wrote to her again. I first thanked her for her support to the Kurdish cause and wished her luck with her new cause celebre. Then, I asked: "what happened? You were an irrepressible atheist, a militant feminist, a woman so bright, so funny and so full of life. What kind of crisis could have inflicted such a fundamental change in your life's trajectory?" And so on, I asked, "didn't you know that the guy in whose name you took the oath of conversion consummated a marriage with a 9 year-old girl?"

The reply I got back was most unconvincing and disheartening. Worse, it was dumb. Really dumb! And so full of mysterious concidences all of a sudden. Just like the kind of conversion stories that I used to hear from so many oh-I'm-so-sure-now born again muslims, christians, jehova's witnesses and mormons and so on.

First, she brushed aside Muhammed's marriage to an underage girl as, "just rumours". Second, she denied she'd gone through any kind of personal crisis. She said she'd felt like walking out of a dark and stiffling room into a fresh garden. The usual clichey stuff.

Third, however, -and this is even more relevant to the subject matter now- she mentioned another woman that she knew, a journalist in Vancouver, who had also converted to islam. She said she was very surprised and delighted to see her in a hijab, "a liberating headger", as she put it, during a pro-Chechen demonstration. Apparently, they'd both converted at around the same time without the knowledge of each other.

Now, for those who may be sceptical of this story's veracity, let me say outright that I no longer have the record of my exchanges with her. The two e-mail accounts that I had from that time have long expired. I recount all of this from memory but there may still be some trace of our public communication in soc.culture.kurdish archives. I won't mention her name/s on this board for obvious reasons, but I shall mail them to Terry Glavin. Not only to provide some evidence for the story, but also to find out whether Terry knows about her in Vancouver and whether I can contact her again. I hope she's alive and well, and I'd dearly love to compare notes with her again after ten years. Yes, my friendship and e-mail exchanges with that once feisty Vancouver lady and friend of Kurdistan, all took place at least two years before the events of 9/11, well before a new 'generation' of 40+ Canadian women converted to militant islam.

Incidentally, I'm not aware of any similar conversion to islam, not the least the jihadist kind, by any woman in Australia. Why so many in Canada? Why Vancouver? What's the mystery behind these coincidences? With this elderly Barbie lady on Terry's blog, it's strike four for foolishness, now.

Anyway, sorry for dragging this comment for too long. I'm quite angry indeed with these romantic fools. What kind of justice is it that these talented, educated women who are born into free societies, then decide freely to surrender themselves into a medieaval religious bond, and propagate it afterwards? My mother, my sisters, my aunts and so many other women that I know of were all born into captivity with no choice, no liberation possible for them. Why don't those female muslim converts defend the rights of the oppressed muslim women against muslim men, instead of defending male persecutors, the jihadists who blow up their 'beautiful' bodies in order to carry so many innocent people with them into oblivion?

Here's Babs sucking up to Palestinians who disbanded a Jenin Youth Orchestra that had the effrontery to play a concert for Holocaust Survivors in Israel:

"Dear Mr. AmayrahI have just published this article in my humble blog, complete of course, with credits and links.I hope you do not mind. Indeed, I would be honoured if you took a look at my work. I find myself very involved in the Palestinian situation because I truly believe we are all, as Latuff once said, we are all Palestinians.I feel Palestinians are part of an international experiment to see how far the world will let the Israelis go with their obscenities. Lately I have branched out to my own country somewhat ~ they are becoming very bold.INDEED tomorrow beloved George Galloway is calling their bluff and entering Canada despite the mess they have created for themselves. I eagerly anticipate this because there is no possible way they can win the public relations war.I am 11th generation Canadian and only this year did I waken up to my own country's illness and become ashamed of what is done in "my name". Learning about the creation of Canada park in Israel was very very upsetting.My main goal is to exploit the cracks that are beginning to show in the armor of these dark ones in Canada and in the US. The Freeman affair down south is a major crack. But, alas I fear it may be too late for people to wake up.Anyhow, forgive me for introducing myself to you in such a public forum, but I was not sure where else to do so. And, about these children being used so, I suppose their parents are supposed to be grateful they were returned with blood in their bodies! These people are beyond shame. I have seen how EVERY nuance of their actions is intended towards a deeper more dangerous or demeaning action, part of a Satanic whole.Insha'Allah we shall survive them."

I would like to be able to say that converts are the most extreme, but if you read the original article and the comments that follow, you'll see it isn't so. Isha'allah indeed. http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/03/29/shame-on-us/

I don't want to seem obsessive, but I just noticed one line in Babs' obsequious note to the author of the disgusting "shame on us" article that escaped me earlier. It was :"I suppose their parents are supposed to be grateful they were returned with blood in their bodies."

Well it is close to passover, and you can bet this bloody anti-semite bigot has her ideas about how Matzohs are made. I bet she fancies herself some great anti-racist humanitarian to boot.